What is actually real in Objective Reality? How do you know? Now, prove it's real!

"The meaning of the world is the separation of wish and fact." - KURT GÖDEL

"According to Peirce's doctrine of fallibilism, the conclusions of science are always tentative. The rationality of the scientific method does not depend on the certainty of its conclusions, but on its self-corrective character: by continued application of the method science can detect and correct its own mistakes, and thus eventually lead to the discovery of truth".

Meta

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 450 other followers

Visitors

Advertisements

"Two important characteristics of maps should be noticed. A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness." - Alfred Korzybski

"Science is a search for basic truths about the Universe, a search which develops statements that appear to describe how the Universe works, but which are subject to correction, revision, adjustment, or even outright rejection, upon the presentation of better or conflicting evidence." - James Randi

"Hypotheses are nets: only he who casts will catch." - Novalis

"Nullius in verba. Take no one's word for it." - Motto of the Royal Society

"I'm trying to find out NOT how Nature could be, but how Nature IS." - Richard Feynman

"The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin." - Thomas Henry Huxley

“A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth.” Albert Einstein

"Skepticism is the agent of reason against organized irrationalism - and is therefore one of the keys to human social and civic decency." - Stephen Jay Gould

"Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What's left is magic. And it doesn't work." - James Randi

David Suzuki Rants Epic on Global Warming and Copenhagen, plus an Interview of Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s IPCC

“We’re talking about the fate of all of human kind and the kind of future we’re going to leave for our children!” – David Suzuki

David Suzuki interviewed by Canada’s CBC Power and Politics host Evan Solomon. Wow, epic rant there David! With “beliefs” like you have David Suzuki no wonder you’re freaking out epic! Slooow down. Don’t panic! Check the science dude.

Now we break net and bring you to backwards world where protesters FOR AGW are fighting with the police out side of the Copenhagen climate change meeting followed quickly by the epic rant of Suzuki!

“15. Pachauri said we could not afford to delay reducing carbon emissions even by a year, or disaster would result. So here’s the math. There are 388 ppmv of CO2 in the air today, rising at 2 ppmv/year over the past decade. So an extra year with no action at all would warm the world by just 4.7 ln(390/388) = 0.024 C, or less than a twentieth of a Fahrenheit degree. And only that much on the assumption that the UN’s sixfold exaggeration of CO2’s true warming potential is accurate, which it is not. Either way, we can afford to wait a couple of decades to see whether anything like the rate of warming predicted by the UN’s climate panel actually occurs.” – Christopher Monckton “Lord Monckton reports on Pachauri’s eye opening Copenhagen presentation“

Science is not a “belief system” David Suzuki! You seem to have forgotten that as a scientist. Since you’re asking the prime minister of Canada what he “believes” on a scientific topic you’re in the realm of politics not science! You’re not even talking about the science at all other than one or two sentences in your entire rant that even begin to address the basis for your wild extreme dark visions of the future. Very strange indeed David. I’ve come to expect more from you over the years!

The epic rant of David Suzuki continues in part 2… with an interview of Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s IPCC, and some additional analysis and results of their straw poll.

Rockysaid

Frank Batskorsaid

I hope that someone can confirm this, but I believe that in the 1970s Mr. Suzuki and others were warning us about the soon be be upon us Ice Age. Due to guess what? The same garbage that they now believes causes Global Warming. Can anyone find these dire warnings.

Jct: What a joke. Even with his low-tech botany degree, hasn’t David Suzuki read about ClimateGate exposing the falsity of “human-induced climate change.” I can forgive him being fooled by the fraudulent data like the rest of us but I can’t forgive him remaining fooled. The record cold spell during Copenhagen makes more laughable his continued fearmongering about global warming. His intransigence in face of the truth has blown what litte scientific credibility he may have had.

MINDYsaid

I think the majority of people misunderstand §uzuki. If you knew him personally you would know different. As a Canadian I stand as a supporter. The economy is manmade=nature is not. Nature sets our limits not you.

While I live in the same city as David Suzuki I don’t know him except through his media presentations. I did meet him once as a very long time ago I rented him my Apple ][ computer for a segment on one of his shows. Oh so long ago.

Recently an old friend informed me that he allegedly overheard Suzuki and another gentleman in a restaurant on 4th Avenue in Kitsalano talking about how much money they and other scientists could make if they only present the Global Warming science the right way. I might do an article about this once I have a full conversation about it with my source. While it’s not a smoking gun it sure raises questions about David Suzuki’s motives and what his sources of income have been over this issue. From the video’s he’s made and the interview he’s clearly a “believer” in the AGW Hypothesis big time. Too bad too as he used to be such a great scientist before allegedly becoming a crusader to his own advantage. Sad. Must investigate further.

Nevensaid

Dear PWL, if you truly believe AGW theory is a hoax and post videos of Christopher Monckton as counter-evidence, you really should consider removing all those fantastic quotes by all of those great minds in your side bars. Doubting the possibility of catastrophic consequences due to AGW is fine, but if you’re going to let yourself be fooled by the likes of Monckton, you are not being skeptical, you are in psychological denial.

Neven: “if you truly believe AGW theory is a hoax and post videos of Christopher Monckton as counter-evidence,”
Jct: I agree. I believe Phil Jones and Mike Mann when they said they used a trick to hide the decline in temperature over the past 10 years leading into our current spell of global cooling and don’t have to rely on anyone else but the culprits to prove my point that if they hid the decline, there was a decline. Wanna bet $100 that in 5 years, believers in the Mann-Made global warming hoax will have been proven right?

Clearly you don’t comprehend the quotes from the great minds adorning this web site, the philosophy of science is based upon the scientific method and the validation or refutation of the claims of a hypothesis, in this case of the above article the alleged catastrophic AGW hypotheses. The process of science is the positing of hypothesis to explain phenomenon and the attempt to refute those claims or validate them.

Those making the wild claims of the catastrophic AGW hypothesis are the ones who must provide the information so that other can replicate the positive verification of their hypothesis as well as any refutations that they can think of (see Feynman). Most climate scientists fail to do the former very well if at all, and almost always forget the later.

Any hypothesis that Christopher Monckton puts forward will also receive scrutiny.

Your ad hominem personal attack against Christopher Monckton and myself is against the spirit of the philosophy of science and as such are the comments of a (1) believer in the catastrophic AGW hypothesis alarmism, (2) political operative, (3) non-scientific person, (4) irrational person attempting to apply peer pressure to have others conform to your beliefs, (5) one or more of the preceding.

When you learn to respect the philosophy of science you’ll grow up to realize that all critics that actually address the actual science have a role in the process of science.

As time goes on and the various hypotheses and counter hypotheses are validated or refuted in turn we’ll see where the cookies land.

In the meantime your attempts at ad hominem personal attacks are not welcome here.

Related Articles – , , ,
Adrenaline Sports In Dubai & Abu Dhabi
These football presents are both special and meaningful.
Related Articles – , , ,
These football presents are both special and meaningful.